Not entirely safe for our gentler readers, but Treacher has the details:

What we have is a BuzzFeed staffer named Josh Fjelstad commenting on a BuzzFeed story about GOProud declaring support for gay marriage:

“WOW GOPROUD FINALLY CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE. SO PROGRESSIVE. SO PROUD OF YOU. SUCK MY DICK.”

Then, presumably after breathing into a paper bag for a few minutes, Fjelstad clarified this highly nuanced stance:

“It appears my last tweet’s point was somehow unclear: I’m saying that it’s offensive how long it took GOProud to support GAY marriage.”

Because all gays must believe in and support exactly the same things, or they aren’t “really” gay. The “Progressive” left says the same thing about women, about blacks, about every group they can conjure up. I mean, how are you going to make people free if you can’t pigeonhole them, then bash them on the head like a whack-a-mole should they try and escape?

And be sure to remind yourself: It’s not gay-bashing when they do it! Remind yourself again and again.

Fjelstad deleted his tweets, but we’ll always have screencaps.

Throw a tantrum, then pretend it didn’t happen — it’s the new civility.

Stephen Green began blogging at VodkaPundit.com in early 2002, and has served as PJMedia's Denver editor since 2008. He's one of the hosts on PJTV, and one-third of PJTV's Trifecta team with Scott Ott and Bill Whittle. Steve lives with his wife and sons in the hills and woods of Monument, Colorado, where he enjoys the occasional lovely adult beverage.

Click here to view the 53 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

53 Comments, 22 Threads

1.
Kitsune

Whoever said that Progressives believe in freedom?

Freedom stands in the way of Progress.

The very nature of Progress, by definition, is that it must march on and on in perpetuity (thereby encroaching more and more on freedom, so that the almighty Progress may continue to happen).

It’s all about trying to leave as many people behind as possible, because even they know deep down that the money to institute all of their ideas just isn’t there, and that people will need to be eliminated so that at least the elites that didn’t “fall behind” the March of Progress can have THEIR utopia.

GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia last year issued a tweet calling a fellow Republican a “fa–ot.” It’s more than hypocritical that he’s pretending to be offended by the Buzzfeed staffer’s tweet.

Story wasn’t by LaSalvia nor were there any statements to indicate he objected which, if I understand the definition of “hypocrite,” would be required for him to be such. In fact, I didn’t see any statement from any member of GOProud. The story is, in fact, about how hypocritical those who claim to be for “gay rights” are when gays don’t toe the “progressive” line (in this case, fast or radically enough). In that regard, I think the author’s point is spot on.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the protocol. It is okay for a gay person to say “f*ggot”, in the same way as it is ok for a black person to say “n*gg–,” and for a white person to call himself a cr*cker.

I am quite familiar with that line of thought. GOProud, however, is apparently not as they recently loudly denounced Dan Savage for using say “Fa-ot” mere days after their leader had done the same. Hypocrisy.

Liberals don’t put a lot of thought into things so therefore, they never change their minds. GOPround’s position changed. It happens. Ten years ago I didn’t believe in gay marriage. Still don’t. I also no longer believe in straight marriage. I believe that marriage is a religious institution and as such it is neither mine nor the government’s business. If we need a mechanism by which the state recognizes unions for tax or inheritance purposes then a simple registry, open to all, should suffice.

Fjelstad is pissed that GOPround didn’t agree with him soon enough. What a nasty little brat. Puts me to mind of Veruca Salt.

@#4.
“Ten years ago I didn’t believe in gay marriage. Still don’t. I also no longer believe in straight marriage. I believe that marriage is a religious institution and as such it is neither mine nor the government’s business. If we need a mechanism by which the state recognizes unions for tax or inheritance purposes then a simple registry, open to all, should suffice.”

I agree that simple registration of domestic relationships regardless of sexual (or lack thereof) nature would be a good thing. (side note, I’ve never had any “Gay Marriage” supporter answer if I should be able to marry my brother, and if not why) I do, however, believe there is a legitimate State interest in marriage, and that is not for the protection of the legal adults that consensualy enter into the accord, but chiefly for the protection and benefit of the innocent minors that issue forth from it. The data is inarguable that children born into and raised in a traditional marriage statistically have the best chance for success and are of most benefit to society. Since 99%+ of children are conceived through normal heterosexual coitus (and many conceived through ART are done so at the request of heterosexual couples) I think there is a distinct difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, and actions the State can take to encourage heterosexual couples to build enduring relationships ultimately are to the benefit of society.

I believe that happy, enduring unions (straight or gay) benefit society greatly, however, there isn’t a whole lot of that going on. In any case, gay marriage has nothing to do with straight marriages failure to thrive. If the State wishes to encourage productive unions then the first step is for the State to get out of the safety net business.

I am continually amazed when people decry the state of marriage and then suggest that this implies that we should create gay marriages, with which no society has significant experience. Hell, let’s reorder the fundamental institutions on which our society depends and hope for the best. Might work out.

I note that we also have almost no experience with separating marriage from the state. There are lots of reasons why the state needs to be involved in determining responsibilities for children and how those are apportioned if a marriage dissolves.

Society is not a set of Lego blocks we can reorder without concern, it is more like a living organism.

That way, you will have no need whatsoever to be concerned when your kids tell you they are experimenting with having loveless sex with their own kind without the worries of children they make themselves or in a test tube. Heck, encourage them.

What if I want to designate a “next of kin” who is a sibling, or a platonic friend of either gender? No, marriages are religious designations, and should not be regulated by government. People should be free to enter into any contract with any number of people of any gender. And tax laws should not be based on marital status.

Tax laws will depend on marital status as long as we have “community income” and progressive marginal rates. (I don’t know why Federal courts thought that a state’s community property laws implied community income for federal tax purposes.)

No disagreement as long as my 10 kids’ (7 currently employed 3 still in school)Social Security contributions go into an account for my wife and me. Let the children of gay “married” couples support their parents.

No, Anonymous, marriage is not the registry that Carol was talking about. Marriage is, as Carol said, a religious and social institution. The brouhaha is about the attempt to change this ancient institution into something it’s not in order to make its legal privileges available to same-sex couples. I believe these privileges should be available to all, but rather than having the state redefine the religious sacrament of marriage, I think it makes more sense to simply create the civil registry that Carol describes, as is currently done in many other countries.

i dunno…”suck my dick” isn’t necessarily an insult. maybe fjelstad was just so elated that goproud has come out in support of equal marriage rights that he was inviting them to join him for some hot oral sex in celebration…?

What “fake anti-gay hate crimes” have been tied to GOProud? I’ve seen LOTS of fake anti-gay hate crimes perpetrated by radical gay activists to further their cause–IMO, GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans aren’t disposed to those kinds of theatrics–they tend to be far more mature and intellectual about their sexuality.

AFAIK, Josh Fjelstad didn’t post a similar tweet when Barack Obama finally came out for gay marriage, so there must be a certain specific window of time in which it is okay to be publicly against gay marriage without drawing this hack’s slurs.

Adding conservative or GOP instantly cancels any ‘protections’ someone might enjoy, from the liberal point of view. Clarence Thomas enjoys no protection that his skin color might afford him because he is conservative. Sarah Palin is not a ‘woman’ from NOW’s perspective because she is a Conservative woman. The GOP part of GOProud negates any ‘protection’ they might have enjoyed.

I didn’t put him in that pigeonhole — Fjelstad did that all to himself. But if he’d care to leave it, I won’t try and pound him back in. Instead, I’ll welcome him to the Really Reality-Based Community.

I wonder (no I don’t) what GOPproud’s position is on balanced budget, and national debt and if — BuzzFeed is it? — has any position at all on fiduciary responsibility. It’s that serious matters are beyond progressive thought.

So, apparently it is not possible to the Left by changing your position on a issue to match theirs. That is grossly insufficient.

One has to travel back in time and “evolve” one’s view along with them or it is completely worthless and you are still an a**hole.

Wow, I did not realize that THIS is what they meant all the times the Left talked about being on the wrong side of history.

Let this be an object lesson.

The Left does not give a damn about the issues. They care about power. You changing your position to match theirs is not a sign of growth, but an obvious ploy to horn in on their power, and they ain’t havin’ it.